page 85 of Linda and Stuart Smithson's invaluable book 'Dartington Glass - The First Twenty Years 1967 - 1987', would appear to have an omission regarding FT 243 ('Co-stars bowls'). The book mentions a bowl diameter of 5.5" only (they apparently came boxed - in pairs) - but since I now have an example of diameter approximately 8.1/8" - then assume the text was intended to state there were two sizes, and the omission was just an over-sight. The book images do, of course make it look as though there are two different sizes anyway, but you never can tell for certain, since perspective my trick the eye.

I feel confident that this piece is without doubt FT243 'Co-stars' - see attached pictures. Do you have evidence Christine that the text comment "Came boxed in pairs" - means that categorically both individuals of the pair were the same diameter of 5.5" - or are you unsure? Do you have a boxed pair?

thanks John...... When you say you have a pair, I assume you mean that you bought them in a box? - and when you say they are the same size do you mean the size quoted in the book, or the larger size like mine?

thanks to all - FT241, 242 and 243 do, of course, share some design similarities - but I'm finding it difficult to believe that my images above could be anything other thanFT243. On the other hand I can imagine confusion between 241, 242 and possibly 257, which from some angles are not too dissimilar. I am assuming that we are talking of measurements taken across the top of the bowl.

Nigel, thanks and have now seen your off board email - and will pursue along the lines you suggest a little later this morning. Hope to be able to settle this anomaly soon

Share some design similarities? They are the same design made in different sizes and profiles.

These Hollywood bowls along with the Daisy range were centrifuge cast. I don't know how they were finished after centrifuging (if at all) but I have in the past noticed a fair degree of variation in the shape and size at the edges of the Daisy bowls, the 'petals' can vary quite dramatically.

At eight inches diameter your bowl will not be FT243 Paul, regardless of any variation in 'spikiness' around the rim.

Nigel suggested that I contact Linda and Stuart Smithson - and now had couple of phone conversations with them (was hoping they might email back, but not received yet). Their conclusions regarding my bowl agree with John's view that - despite looking unlike the one in the book - this can only be FT242, in view of the size. I understand that the original drawing for FT242 does in fact show a design with more elongated 'fingers' than the image shown in the book, although I don't know whether in practise pieces are more spikey like mine, or whether in general they look nearer to the book example. I look forward to finding my next piece of 242, for comparison. So, sincere thanks to all for straightening me out, and special thanks to Linda and Stuart Smithson for their time and trouble.Might be interesting to see pix of a range of these centrifuge pieces, in order to guage the extent of variation.

NOTE: Request to Mods..............grateful if the subject heading is amended to now read........"Variation in Dartington Centrifuge Design".